Ian Hickson, Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:59:11 +0000 (UTC):
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Laura Carlson wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>>> Nobody has collected equivalent data showing summary="" is useful at
>>> improving accessibility in practice,
>>
>> Last month Roger Johansson asked on his blog, "Do you find table
>> summaries helpful?"[1]. and received three responses from screen reader
>> users.
>>
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200911/do_you_find_table_summaries_helpful/
> [...] I think a better way to get data
> about this would be a set of usability studies of Web authors followed by
> double-blind studies of the pages they write. For example, take six to
> nine Web developers, and give them the task of marking up some Web pages
> that include particularly complex data tables in an accessible way that is
> still aesthetically pleasing to them. The developers would be split into
> three groups, one being given instructions on using summary="", one being
> given instructions on writing paragraphs around the table, and one being
> given no instruction at all. [...]
What would this find out? The goals must be specified. E.g. would it
find out whether those that use @summary write worse summaries than
those that put this stuff "nearby" the table? Specifically, I think it
is wrong to do it just for the purpose of seeing @summary can be
ditched or not. The whole tone of the suggested test is to create
something that the working group _must_ believe. That's not the right
attitude.
> [...] If people agree that this is a reasonable thing to do,
> I might (emphasis on "might") be able to get the resources [...]
That study would take resources. And discussing the outcome of it would
take resources. And we would not agree about the interpretation.
Rather than spending the (debating) resources on the validity of
@summary, I think one should establish a) what kind of extra info sight
disabled need, b) decide the ways that this could be added - were
@summary very well could be the last option.
And, rather than only asking users, one could focus on authors. E.g.
pick some pages with tables "out in the wild", without @summary or any
other similar text. Then contact the authors and ask them if they would
be willing to add @summary or change the table visual design for the
blind.
For a study of how authors would create a new table - and how users
would react to it, then I think the study that you suggested, Ian,
should be changed a bit. Here is one idea:
1 Let some designers design one or several tables. Save the result.
2 Then tell them to add a @summary with info for blind. Save the result.
3 Then tell them to instead use a visual <summary> inside <caption>.
Save the result.
4 Then tell them that they should hide the content of <summary> via
CSS. Tell them that they may add more text to summary, if they wish.
Save the result.
5 Then tell them to just add the summary info nearby the table. Save
the result.
6. Analyze the results.
7. Test the the resulting tables from step 1 to 5 on users. Both
sighted and blind.
8. Analyze the results of the user test.
Before step 2, the designers should be told what kind of info the blind
need. And they should write the summary texts themselves. (So before
the text can be done, it should be clear what table summary should look
like.)
What I would like to find out is e.g. whether a dedicated slot for the
summary would improve the result. I would also like to test if - or how
- adding a text that is meant for summary increases the value for
unsighted. I'm interested in a qualitative study of authors, were
authors strive to do the best. Rather than testing different authors
against each others.
One could also perform dedicated user tests, with some "ideal" tables
(with "perfect" summaries) in different versions (w.r.t how the summary
is inserted). If we know what works best, then the next problem is "how
to get authors/user agents to do it".
--
leif halvard silli